Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2024 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 996 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTCondonation of delay in filing Appeal - challenged the order passed by the appellate authority u/s 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 for dismissing the appeal as time-barred due to delay in filing beyond the prescribed period - HELD THAT:- Upon a perusal of the memo of appeal filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the order was communicated on January 17, 2023, as admitted by the petitioner itself. The petitioner has explained the delay stating that the delay was caused due to the ignorance of AR/legal counsel and also because the petitioner suffered with medical emergency caused by acute viral hepatitis between the period April 10, 2023 to May 31, 2023. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Pioneer Corporation v. Union of India [2016 (6) TMI 437 - DELHI HIGH COURT] to argue that in exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of rare cases, the writ court has the power to condone the delay. However, as pointed out in the appellate order, which is under challenge before this Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises vs. C.C.E., Jamshedpur [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] has held that u/s 35 of the Central Excise Act, the delay cannot be condoned beyond what is prescribed under the Central Excise Act as the language of the said section specifically provides for condonation of delay of additional 30 days only. Section 85 of the Act is in pari materia with the above section. The Finance Act, 1994 is a special statute and a self-contained code by itself having an inbuilt mechanism wherein it has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 (‘Limitation Act’). It is a trite law that the power of Section 5 of the Limitation Act will be available only if it is extended to a special statute. The adjudication of matters involving statutory timelines often raises questions regarding the interplay between general statutes such as the Limitation Act and special statutes with their own prescribed limitations. Thus, no interference is warranted with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
|